DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The following Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 10/01/2025. Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 have been rejected as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 recites at least one step or instruction for observation, evaluation or judgement of exercise equipment type data and user’s movement data, performing mathematical calculations using such data and transmitting/notifying the user of the results and prompting the user to perform various actions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG, a mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG or certain methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involve observing the type of exercise equipment, making a judgement regarding an algorithm to be used for determining various parameters including a repetition count, observing the user’s movement data and performing mathematical calculations using such data to determine a repetition count and transmitting the results.
A detailed evaluation of claims 1, 3-10 and 12-13 has been shown below. Although not specifically shown, the same evaluation also applies to claims 11, 14 and 16-20. Please note that the underlined portions show the abstract idea, the bolded portions show additional elements, and the statement within the parenthesis clarify the specific abstract idea of the specific limitation.
Specifically, the claims recite:
1. A method comprising:
detecting, by a near field communication sensor of a first wearable device, a first radio frequency identification signal indicative of a first tag identifier from a first tag located on a first exercise equipment (i.e. visually observing and mentally identifying a name tag on an exercise equipment; involves observation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG);
selecting, by one or more processors of the first wearable device and from a memory of the first wearable device, a first algorithm from a plurality of stored algorithms based on the first tag identifier having a stored association with the first algorithm, wherein the plurality of stored algorithms are associated with a plurality of exercises available to a user, and wherein the first algorithm is associated with a first exercise of the plurality of exercises that is to be performed using the first exercise equipment (i.e. recalling from memory a first algorithm based on the type of the exercise equipment identified and a first exercise to be performed by the user and choosing the first algorithm to perform calculations; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
receiving, by the one or more processors and from a sensor of the first wearable device, first movement data of the user performing the first exercise using the first exercise equipment, wherein the first movement data comprises a first plurality of vectors that represent a movement of the first wearable device, and wherein each vector of the first plurality of vectors is associated with a respective set of vector indexes (i.e. visually observing a user’s movement during an exercise and mentally determining first movement data of the user as vectors with plurality of indexes; involves observation, evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG, and mathematical relationships which is grouped as a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG);
executing, by the one or more processors, the first algorithm, wherein executing the first algorithm comprises: selecting a first portion of the first movement data as a first input, wherein the first portion of the first movement data corresponds to a first subset of vector indexes of a plurality of sets of vector indexes associated with the first plurality of vectors in accordance with the first algorithm (i.e. mentally or with a pen and paper, select a first subset of vector indexes and perform calculations using the selected first subset; involves evaluation which is grouped as mental process under 2019 PEG and mathematical calculations which is grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG);
discarding a second portion of the first movement data, wherein the second portion of the first movement data corresponds to a second subset of vector indexes of the plurality of sets of vector indexes associated with the first plurality of vectors, wherein the discarding is based at least in part on the second subset of vector indexes not corresponding to the first exercise (i.e. mentally or with a pen and paper, discarding/ignoring/crossing out a second subset of vector indexes; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG); and
determining, by the one or more processors, when the user has completed one repetition of the first exercise based on using only the first portion of the first movement data as the first input and discarding the second portion of the first movement data (i.e. mentally (or manually) perform the calculation to determine repetition count; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical calculations which is grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG); and
transmitting, by an antenna of the first wearable device and to a remote computing device, a signal indicative of a record comprising repetition movement data that was received during the one repetition (i.e. verbally or through writing provide the results of calculation to another person; involves opinion which is grouped as mental process under 2019 PEG, and involves managing interactions between people which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG).
3. The method of claim 1, wherein executing the first algorithm further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, one or more performance parameters of the user performing the first exercise (i.e. mentally or with a pen and paper, perform calculations; involves mathematical calculations which is grouped as a mathematical concept under 2019 PEG),
the method further comprising: transmitting, by the antenna and to the remote computing device, an indication of the one or more performance parameters (i.e. verbally or through writing provide the results of calculation to another person; involves opinion which is grouped as mental process under 2019 PEG, and involves managing interactions between people which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG).
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining when the user has completed the one repetition comprises: comparing, by the one or more processors, consecutive vectors of the first portion of the first movement data to identify a difference in values between the consecutive vectors (i.e. mentally comparing consecutive vectors to determine any changes; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG); and
determining, by the one or more processors, that the user has completed the one repetition based on the difference satisfying a repetition policy (i.e. mentally determining based on the obtained comparison result, that a repetition has been completed; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
5. The method of claim 1, wherein executing the first algorithm further comprises:
determining, by the one or more processors, a speed of the user from the first movement data (i.e. visually observe and mentally determine a speed of the user from the user’s movement data; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG); and
comparing, by the one or more processors, the speed to a stored speed associated with the first algorithm (i.e. mentally recalling a speed associated with the selected algorithm and perform the comparison; involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG);
the method further comprising: notifying, by the one or more processors, the user, on a display of the first wearable device, of the stored speed, the speed of the user, or a difference between the stored speed and the speed of the user (i.e. writing the speed of the user or the recalled speed or the result of the comparison on a piece of paper; involves evaluation, judgement and opinion which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG, and involves managing interactions between people which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG).
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: prompting the user, by the one or more processors, using an audible signal, a visual signal, or both to perform the first exercise (i.e. verbally or by writing on a piece of paper or through gestures communicating to the user to perform the exercise; involves opinion which is grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves managing interactions between people which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG).
7. The method of claim 1, wherein executing the first algorithm comprises: identifying, by the one or more processors, the first exercise performed by the user based on the first movement data, the first tag identifier, or both (i.e. visually observing and mentally determining the exercise being performed by the user; involves observation, evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, a user input from the user, wherein receiving the user input causes the one or more processors to: alter one or more weights associated with values in the first movement data when the one or more processors execute the first algorithm (i.e. receive through verbal or written communication to change the weight associated with the values in the user’s movement data when performing calculations using the selected algorithm; involves observation and evaluation which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical calculation which is grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG).
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising prompting the user, by the one or more processors, using an audible signal, a visual signal, or both to place the first wearable device on a body part of the user (i.e. verbally or via writing, communicating with the user to perform an action; involves opinion which is grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG, also involves managing interactions between people which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG).
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
maintaining, by the one or more processors, a counter indicating a number of repetitions the user has performed of the first exercise (i.e. memorizing or writing down the number of repetitions performed by the user; involves observation which is grouped as mental process under 2019 PEG);
incrementing, by the one or more processors, the counter responsive to the determining the user has completed the one repetition based on the execution of the first algorithm using the first portion of the first movement data (i.e. mentally performing calculations and increasing the repetition count; involves mathematical calculation which is grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG and involves evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG); and
prompting the user, by the one or more processors, using an audible signal, a visual signal, or both to stop the first exercise and begin a second exercise responsive to the number of repetitions indicated by the counter exceeding a predetermined threshold (i.e. mentally determining a predetermined threshold of repetition count has been exceeded and verbally or via writing, communicating to the user to stop the exercise and start the next exercise; involves evaluation, judgement and opinion which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves managing interactions between people which is grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG).
12. The method of claim 1, wherein executing the first algorithm further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, a form of the user performing the first exercise from the first movement data and comparing the form of the user to a stored form (i.e. visually observing the user’s form and mentally comparing it to a form stored in the mind; involves observation, evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG).
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving second movement data from a sensor of a second wearable device, wherein executing the first algorithm further comprises: aggregating the first portion of the first movement data from the sensor of the first wearable device and the second movement data from the sensor of the second wearable device (i.e. visually observing the movement of the user and mentally aggregating the first portion of the first movement data and the second movement data to determine parameters; involves observation, evaluation and judgement which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and involves mathematical calculations which is grouped as mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 3-13 and 16-20 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent Claims 3-13 and 16-20) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 14), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: one or more processors of one or more wearable devices, a memory of the wearable device, tags on exercise equipment, one or more sensors of the wearable device including a near-field communication sensor, communication interfaces and a display of the one or more wearable device, are generically recited computer elements or conventional sensors and exercise devices, in independent claims and their respective dependent claims, which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process, mathematical concepts and certain methods of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., one or more processors, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: one or more processors of one or more wearable devices, a memory of the wearable device, tags on exercise equipment, one or more sensors of the wearable device, communication interfaces and a display of the one or more wearable device.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components or conventional sensors and exercise device which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks in various exercise areas. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Additionally, in light of Applicant’s specification, ¶ [0017]-[0018], [0040], [0053]-[0054] and [0118], the claimed terms wearable device, one or more processors of the wearable device, a memory of the wearable device, one or more sensors of the wearable device (including a near-field communications sensor), communication interfaces and a display of the one or more wearable device, are reasonably construed as a generic computing devices. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the one or more processors of the wearable device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in the claims amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method and system of Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or mathematical concept) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, stating that independent claims 1 and 14 are not directed to a judicial exception because each of these claims (a) do not recite an abstract idea under Prong One, and (b) any allegedly recited abstract ideas are nonetheless integrated into a practical application in Prong Two, and further stating:
“In particular, amended independent claims 1 and 14 recite specific hardware components and corresponding steps or functions that are not capable of being performed in the human mind. For example, amended independent claim 14 recites a system that includes specific components for executing an algorithm for a workout, including "a near-field communication sensor of a first wearable device" and "one or more processors" configured to "execute [a] first algorithm," the execution of the first algorithm including "select[ing]a first portion of the first movement data as a first input" and "discard[ing] a second portion of the first movement data." The components recited in amended independent claim 14 include specific hardware components that are configured to detect RFID signaling from a tag and execute an algorithm for a workout associated with a detected tag by selectively including portions of movement data for identifying workout repetitions. In particular, the human mind is not capable of detecting RFID signaling, or selectively using or discarding specific portions of movement vectors for evaluating workout repetitions. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 1 is not capable of being performed wholly within the human mind (or with pen and paper). Accordingly, Applicant submits that amended independent claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea under Prong One, and is therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings.
As stated above and in the previous Office Action, the “near-field communication sensor” and “one or more processors” are not specific hardware components. The near-field communication sensor recognizes the type of exercise equipment. Such recognition can be done visually by a user. The near-field communication sensor, such as an RFID sensor/reader, is a type of recognition means which is well-known and conventional. In fact, according to ¶ [0042]-[0043] of Applicant’s own specification: “The wearable device scans the tag and receives the tag identifier using a communication interface. The communication interface may be a scanner of the wearable device. The scanner of the wearable device may a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) scanner, a laser scanner, a near field communication reader, or any other type of scanner. The tags may be RFID tags, barcodes, QR codes, or any tag capable of being scanned using near field communication…In some embodiments the exercise equipment may be identified by a camera”. As such, according to the specification, any recognition means that can recognize/identify the exercise equipment can be used, including any type of near-field communication sensor. The near-field communication sensor has been recited in a high level of generality in the claims and therefore is not considered a specific component. Such recited near-field communication sensor (that detects RFID signals), is considered conventional and well-known. As stated above, the recited function performed by the near-field communication sensor, can also be performed mentally (see above for details). The same applies regarding the “one or more processors”. The “one or more processors” has also been recited in a high level of generality and thus is not a specific component (see the specification for details). With respect to the recited functions of the one or more processors, as stated above and previously, can also be performed mentally using a pen and paper, whereby an algorithm associated with the detected exercise equipment for performing an associated workout, is selected and executed by mentally using pen and paper, selecting a portion of movement data/specific portion of a vector/vector indexes and discarding the rest (i.e., filtering data mentally) and through mathematical calculations determining certain data such as a repetition (see above for details). As such, the argued functions of the one or more processors can also be performed mentally using a pen and paper, since such involve observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, which are grouped as mental processes under 2019 PEG and mathematical calculations which is grouped under mathematical concepts under 2019 PEG. According to the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), part III. MENTAL PROCESSES: “Nor do courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via a pen and paper or in a person’s mind” Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As for claim 14 being directed towards a “system”, the same portion of MPEP states: “Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”. Furthermore, performing a mental process on a generic computer, using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process or performing a mental process in a computer environment does not make the mental process/abstract idea patent eligible. As a result, claims 1 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s further arguments stating:
“In determining whether claims are directed to an abstract idea under Prong One, the courts have evaluated whether claims "[have] the specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it." See SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F. 3d 1161, Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (2018). In the instant case, independent claim 14 recites functions/steps performed by hardware elements for evaluating a user's workout performance by selectively including movement data according to vector indexes relevant to a detected workout. However, amended independent claim 1 does not merely claim the result of evaluating a user's workout, but rather recites specific features, steps, and classifiers which define a specific way of achieving the desired result (namely, evaluating the user's movement data to identify which portions of movement data are to be included in determining workout repetitions). In particular, amended independent claim 1 achieves the desired result of evaluating the user's movement data by using hardware components to compare vector indexes for movement data with those vector indexes which correspond to a detected workout. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claim 14 is not directed to an abstract idea under Prong One, and is therefore patent eligible under 35 U.S.C.§ 101. Amended independent claim 1 recites similar features to amended independent claim 14, and therefore also not directed to an abstract idea”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. Please note that such argued comparison of vector indexes for movement data with those vector indexes which correspond to a detected workout, has not been recited in the claims. As such, applicant is arguing narrower than claimed. The recited steps of selecting a first portion of the first movement data (including the first subset of vector indexes) and discarding a second portion of the first movement data (including a second subset of vector indexes), wherein discarding is based at least in part on the second subset of vector indexes not corresponding to the first exercise, as shown above and previously, are steps that can be performed mentally using pen and paper. The recited steps of selecting a portion of the movement data and discarding the rest are “filtering” steps. Filtering content has been found to be abstract by the Federal Circuit (Bascom 2015).
According to 2106.04(a)(2) of the MPEP, “[c]laims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)”. The amendments made to the claims reciting: “discarding a second portion of the first movement data…wherein the discarding is based at least in part on the second subset of vector indexes not corresponding to the first exercise”, is a limitation that only further limits the abstract idea. A claim limitation that further limits an abstract idea does not make that claim limitation any less abstract. As such, claim 1 and 14, are still directed towards an abstract idea.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding Prong Two, stating:
“Moreover, even if amended independent claims 1 and 14 are deemed to recite an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, amended independent claims 1 and 14 integrate the features into a practical application, and are therefore patent eligible under Prong Two. Amended independent claim 14, for example, is directed to a system that includes "a wearable device comprising one or more processors, a memory, a plurality of communications interfaces, and a plurality of sensors" that perform specific steps/functions for achieving a desired result, as explained above. In this regard, amended independent claim 1 recites specialized hardware devices (e.g., wearable devices) that are specifically configured to acquire workout movement from users, and are not simply "a generic processor performing a generic computer function," as asserted in the Office Action. As such, amended independent claim 14 recites a particular integration of features into a practical application, and is therefore not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2B (Prong Two). Amended independent claim 1 recites similar features to amended independent claim 14, and therefore also not directed to an abstract idea”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. As stated above, the wearable device comprising one or more processors, a memory, a plurality of communication interfaces, and a plurality of sensors, are considered additional elements. These additional elements, have been recited in a high level of generality and are considered conventional and well-known. In fact, ¶ [0022] of applicant’s own specification recites: “The wearable device 110 may be a smart watch, a smart bracelet, a fitness tracker, a smart ring, or any other wearable device”. Other parts of the specification provide further examples of the wearable device (i.e., a glove, see ¶ [0017]). As such, the wearable device as recited in claims 1 and 14, is not a specialized
hardware device. The recited components of the wearable device, including one or more processors, a plurality of sensors, a memory, and a plurality of communication interfaces, are also not specialized hardware components, and are considered generic computer components and conventional sensors. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process or performing a mental process in a computer environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not make the mental process/abstract idea patent eligible.
In response to applicant’s further arguments regarding claims 1 and 14 being similar to Example 42 of the “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples” published by the USPTO, and stating:
“Similarly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1 and 14 also include additional elements which recite a specific improvement over prior art systems, namely, the ability to identify and selectively include workout movement data as inputs for an algorithm for determining workout repetitions. Current techniques for identifying repetitions of an exercise require users to manually note exercise repetitions, weights, types, and sequencing via a physical interface. Comparatively, features recited in amended independent claims 1 and 14 enable efficient and automatic identification of exercise types, repetitions, and weights based on exercise movement data collected via wearable devices. As such, amended independent claims 1 and 14 recite an improvement to current systems and techniques for exercise performance, and "recite a specific improvement over prior art systems," as described in the finding of patent eligibility in Example 42. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended independent claims 1 and 14 are patent eligible for at least those same reasons the claims from Example 42 were found to be patent eligible”,
the Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to mention the followings. Applicant is reminded that abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract idea, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). See Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir 2016). Here, the additional elements of claims 1 and 14, as identified above, are merely generically recited computer elements used as tools for executing the abstract ideas or insignificant extra-solution activity. Although applicant’s recited method may speed up the process by using a computer, they do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technical problems. Furthermore, the claims of example 42 are not the same as that of instant application. Applicant’s reason of “the ability to identify and selectively include workout movement data as inputs for an algorithm for determining workout repetitions” is not discussed in example 42. As such, the analysis of claims of example 42 does not apply to that of claims 1 and 14. As such, claims 1 and 14 (and their dependent claims) are still directed to an abstract idea and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH whose telephone number is (571)270-7403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 am - 3:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LoAn Jimenez can be reached at (571)272- 4966. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHILA JALALZADEH ABYANEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3784